Santeco vs Avance Digest

Short Description

Download Santeco vs Avance Digest...

Description

Teresita D. Santeco vs. Atty. Luna B. Avance A.C. No. 5834 (formerly CBD-01-861). February 22, 2011 Facts: In an En Banc Decision dated December 11, 2003, the Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for, among others, abandoning her client’s cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her without any explanation for doing so. She was ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. Subsequently, while respondent’s five-year suspension from the practice of law was still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, sent a letter-report dated November 12, 2007 to the Court Administrator informing the latter that respondent had appeared and actively participated in three cases wherein she misrepresented herself as “Atty. Liezl Tanglao”. When opposing counsels confronted her and showed to the court a certification regarding her suspension, respondent admitted and conceded that she is Atty. Luna Luna B. Avanc Avance, e, but but qual qualif ifie ied d that that she she was only only susp suspen ended ded for for thre threee year yearss and and that that her her suspension has already been lifted. Acting on Judge Amog-Bocar’s letter-report, the Court, in a Resolution dated April 9, 2008, required respondent to comment within ten days from notice. Respondent, however, failed to file the required comment. On June 10, 2009, the Court reiterated the directive to comment. Still, respondent failed to comply despite notice. Accordingly, this Court issued a Resolution on September 29, 2009 finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt. Respondent was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of Php 30,000.00 which respondent failed to pay. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Avance should be disbarred. Held Held:: Resp Respon onde dent nt Atty Atty.. Luna Luna B. Avanc Avancee is disb disbar arre red d for for gros grosss misc miscond onduc uctt and and will willfu full disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court. Her name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. Rationale: As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes. We have have held held that that failur failuree to comply comply with with Court Court direct directive ivess constit constitute utess gross gross miscon misconduct duct,, insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyer’s suspension or even disbarment. Sebastian v. Bajar teachers Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter utter disres disrespec pectt to the judici judicial al instit instituti ution. on. Respond Respondent ent’s ’s conduct conduct indica indicates tes a high high degree degree or irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is “not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders not “only betrays recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.” Under Under Section Section 27, Rule Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member member of the bar may be disbarre disbarred d or suspended suspended from office office as an attorney attorney for gross gross misconduct misconduct and/or for a willful willful disobedience disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, to wit:

SEC. 27. Disbarment

or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or of any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied.) In repeatedly disobeying this Court’s orders, respondent proved herself unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.